Here we investigate the molecular mechanisms that govern the targeting of G-protein ␣ subunits to the plasma membrane. For this purpose, we used G i1␣ as a model dually acylated G-protein. We fused full-length G i1␣ or its extreme NH 2 -terminal domain (residues 1-32 or 1-122) to green fluorescent protein (GFP) and analyzed the subcellular localization of these fusion proteins. We show that the first 32 amino acids of G i1␣ are sufficient to target GFP to caveolin-enriched domains of the plasma membrane in vivo, as demonstrated by cofractionation and co-immunoprecipitation with caveolin-1. Interestingly, when dual acylation of this 32-amino acid domain was blocked by specific point mutations (G2A or C3S), the resulting GFP fusion proteins were localized to the cytoplasm and excluded from caveolinrich regions. The myristoylated but nonpalmitoylated (C3S) chimera only partially partitioned into caveolincontaining fractions. However, both nonacylated GFP fusions (G2A and C3S) no longer co-immunoprecipitated with caveolin-1. Taken together, these results indicate that lipid modification of the NH 2 -terminal of G i1␣ is essential for targeting to its correct destination and interaction with caveolin-1. Also, a caveolin-1 mutant lacking all three palmitoylation sites (C133S, C143S, and C156S) was unable to co-immunoprecipitate these dually acylated GFP-G-protein fusions. Thus, dual acylation of the NH 2 -terminal domain of G i1␣ and palmitoylation of caveolin-1 are both required to stabilize and perhaps regulate this reciprocal interaction at the plasma membrane in vivo. Our results provide the first demonstration of a functional role for caveolin-1 palmitoylation in its interaction with signaling molecules.

The leuprorelin solid implant was associated with potential cost savings compared with the most commonly used LHRH agonist preparations.

A number of practical differences exist between the different LHRH agonist preparations available, which may impact on clinical practice. It is important for healthcare providers to be aware and carefully consider these differences when selecting treatments for their prostate cancer patients.

Background: There are two slow-release ready-to-use forms of leuprorelin acetate (1-month and 3-month) that are available as solid, biodegradable implants for the treatment of advanced, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. These implants have been shown to be as effective as traditional leuprorelin acetate microspheres for achieving successful testosterone suppression (⩽0.5 ng/ml) and lowering prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. Here we further evaluate testosterone suppression levels from four clinical trials evaluating the 3-month leuprorelin implant, including analysis below the European Association of Urology (EAU) castration level (<0.2 ng/ml). Methods: Studies were conducted in patients with locally advanced/metastatic prostate cancer: (1) a randomised, controlled single-dose study comparing the leuprorelin implant with leuprorelin microspheres; (2) a single-arm, single-dose study of the leuprorelin implant; (3 and 4) two long-term studies with the leuprorelin implant administered twice, 12 or 16 weeks apart. Patients received 3-month leuprorelin (5 mg) implant or 3-month leuprorelin (10.72 mg) microspheres. Testosterone levels were analysed using radioimmunoassay or ultrasensitive liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Results: Both the leuprorelin implant and the leuprorelin microspheres achieved mean testosterone suppression (⩽0.5 ng/ml) within 4 weeks for >3 months. In both long-term, single-arm studies with the leuprorelin implant, median values of testosterone ⩽0.2 ng/ml were achieved at Week 4 and maintained until study completion (6 and 8 months); PSA decrease was also observed versus baseline. Conclusions: Long-lasting steady serum levels of testosterone, comparable with orchiectomy and consistent with the EAU-recommended castration level (<0.2 ng/ml), were achieved at Week 4 and maintained up to 8 months in men with advanced prostate cancer who received the leuprorelin implant.

No abstract